21.07.2013 Views

History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ENDNOTES<br />

1 It is a noteworthy fact that none of the <strong>Methodist</strong> historians makes the slightest allusion to this<br />

important revival of liberal principles. Asbury alone gives us a slight cue. He says: "At this<br />

Conference there was a stroke aimed at the President Eldership." See "Journal," Vol. II. p.319,<br />

edition of 1852. Incidentally from other sources it is ascertained that it was ably debated, but for the<br />

reasons assigned made no headway against Episcopal prerogatives now so impregnably entrenched<br />

and buttressed by this same Conference.<br />

2 "Life and Times of Bishop McKendree." By Bishop Paine. Nashville, Tenn., 1880.<br />

3 Guirey's Episcopacy," p. 380. Also Lee's <strong>History</strong>."<br />

4 General Conference of 1796, Address to British Conference, in Stevens.<br />

5 Yet he also minifies elsewhere the new Church.<br />

6 Stevens says 1795, an error. See "<strong>History</strong>," Vol. III. p.355, edition of 1867.<br />

7 "Letters from Heaven, Consulted." By James O'Kelly. Hillsborough, 1822. 8vo, 67 pp. Its literary<br />

ability is very fair.<br />

8 Asbury in his "Journal," Vol. III. p.8, admits fully that Snethen's work was a mere compilation. He<br />

is in South Carolina, February 5, 1801: "I received the compilation of N. Snethen, intended as an<br />

answer to James O'Kelly: it is well done, and very correctly done, except in a few cases." Snethen<br />

could not restrain the expression of his liberal views even in the O'Kelly matter, much as he<br />

disapproved his secession at the time, and this is the significance of the remark, "except in a few<br />

cases." In the same paragraph, Asbury having just been over the ground traveled by him and Coke<br />

in 1791, and having probably heard some averments of his "cold" treatment of Coke when he arrived<br />

at Charleston, S.C., and was chagrined to discover that he was against the Council, and in favor of<br />

a General Conference, siding now with O'Kelly as was found, he thinks it advisable to enter a<br />

disclaimer at this late date, ten years after, as to his treatment of Coke by declaring: "There was no<br />

sharpness at all upon my side with Dr. Coke at Charleston respecting the proposed General<br />

Conference which was afterward held [1792]. I was fully convinced that nothing else would finish<br />

the unhappy business with O'Kelly, and that did finish it." But not on the original issues, which were<br />

the abolition of the Council and the call of a General Conference, points which were won by Coke<br />

and O'Kelly; but the issue that finished O'Kelly in the disastrous secession was a new one, that of<br />

an appeal for the preachers. Naturally Asbury puts the best face on it he can in this note.<br />

9 Following in this the best obtainable data from <strong>Methodist</strong> historians, error is recorded as to the<br />

origin and time of this new appellation. Happily, recent reliable information gives the corrections<br />

and other interesting facts as to O'Kelly, and the denomination of Christians acknowledging him as<br />

their father. The writer has before him the centennial number of the Christian Sun, organ of this

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!